Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.
This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.
All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)
I think You may have misunderstood my meaning when I said "Now I know why you said take it for whats its worth" WEB. I never said it was a lie nor was it my intention. For all I or anyone else knows its true. What I am debating is this occurred back in 2000 and 2004....And its rather convenient suddenly they are running a four to six year old story when McCain is struggling hard to get the hardcore republican vote.
So they held onto this story for 4-8 years, because they knew McCain would be the Republican nominee and they wanted to screw him over?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesty Puller
To me it seems they are trying to keep McCain off balance after all he is on easy street right now admittedly. The Democratic nominees are feasting on one another's entrails while McCain sits back plans his strategy and focuses on trying to get the hardcore conservative vote. The hardcore guys are worried about McCain's willingness to cross the isle to much and whether or not he will serve Republican interests.
So I still say its no coincidence that out of the blue when McCain is really struggling to win conservative votes the New York Times a known Liberal paper publishes an article making McCain look like he has a serious Democratic bent which in turn will push the conservatives farther away from him.
No, I don't think so. These rumors about McCain wanting to join the Republicans have been swirling around him for months, if not years now. They seem to make sense actually, given how much of a maverick McCain is and how foul they played him in 2000 in South Carolina. They said his wife was a drug addict, that he was a Manchurian Candidate and they played the race-card against his adopted daughter, saying that she was the product of an affair between McCain and a black lady (implying he cheated on his wife). You merely have to look in your own party to find the hardest attacks on McCain.
__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")
So they held onto this story for 4-8 years, because they knew McCain would be the Republican nominee and they wanted to screw him over?
Bah, come now WEB we both know during an election the dirt will be found or in this case pulled from a news vault somewhere. Its not a matter of them being psychic and holding onto this, this story was run years ago already. The issue is why bring it up again all of the sudden, the answer is simple its a smear tactic and a diversion to pull attention away from the Democrats who are feasting on there young right now.
To quote Bill Oreilly "The split between some conservatives and john McCain was front page news all over the country, as it should have been." Any bad feeling between the republican presidential nominee and the right wing of the party is important".
"The left wing media is downplaying the bitter fight within the Democratic party. What we have here is lots of democrat vs democrat bickering you would think this fracture would be a huge story." "The Washington Post has down played the story as have other liberal media organizations. This is very strange for a news organization that prides itself on political coverage. The Washington post doesn't want to report on fighting within the Democratic party, and the paper is not alone."
So instead of reporting on the giant crevice in the Democratic camp, they decide to run old news on McCain while he is struggling to get the hard core conservative vote.
Quote:
No, I don't think so. These rumors about McCain wanting to join the Republicans have been swirling around him for months, if not years now. They seem to make sense actually, given how much of a maverick McCain is and how foul they played him in 2000 in South Carolina. They said his wife was a drug addict, that he was a Manchurian Candidate and they played the race-card against his adopted daughter, saying that she was the product of an affair between McCain and a black lady (implying he cheated on his wife). You merely have to look in your own party to find the hardest attacks on McCain.
My original point was not that any of this was false or misleading, in fact most of this is true, the Republican party wanted a nominee other then McCain most people know this. My problem is instead of reporting on important topics to Americans like the huge division occurring within the democratic party they decide to rerun a story that's how many years old? Its just a little too convenient in my eyes. Especially for papers famous for their political coverage, suddenly while the democrats ravage one another it gets quiet and instead of hearing about the schism in the Democratic party we get an old story on McCain. Seems like the left wing liberal media is trying to downplay and outright hide this fracture within the Democratic party by waging a republican smear campaign (which is not overly surprising). Running old news on McCain is A little too convenient for this Republican to swallow when the divide in the Democratic party is such a major issue, can you say Deflection?
__________________
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.
- James Freeman Clarke
Last edited by Chesty Puller : 03-25-2008 at 06:47 AM.
They would not, that's the fallacy in the argument, it makes no sense.
The NYT often gets accused of being strictly leftist; that in itself is a fallacy. The NYT printed every one of Judith Miller's articles leading up to the Iraq war, which were instrumental in whipping up public support for the invasion of Iraq; they were pure misiniformation straight from the Pentagon, and the NYT often put them on its front page.
Quote:
Miller was criticized for her reporting on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). On September 7, 2002, Miller and Times reporter Michael R. Gordon reported the interception of metal tubes bound for Iraq. Her front page story quoted unnamed "American officials" and "American intelligence experts" who said the tubes were intended to be used to enrich nuclear material, and cited unnamed "Bush administration officials" who claimed that in recent months, Iraq had "stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb."[8]
Miller added that "Mr. Hussein's dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq's push to improve and expand Baghdad's chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the United States to the brink of war." Although Miller conceded that some intelligence experts found the information on Iraq's weapons programs "spotty," she did not report specific and detailed objections, including a report filed with the US government more than a year before Miller's article appeared by retired Oak Ridge National Laboratory physicist, Houston G. Wood III, who concluded that the tubes were not meant for centrifuges.
Shortly after Miller's article was published, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld all appeared on television and pointed to Miller's story as a partial basis for going to war. Subsequent analyses by various agencies all concluded that there was no way the tubes could have been used for uranium-enrichment centrifuges. ...
And don't forget that the NYT has not only endorsed Clinton but also McCain in the primaries. The NYT also endorsed Bloomberg, a republican, in the last NYC mayoral election.
Some more examples of how the NYT is not as "leftist" as right-wingers make it out to be:
Quote:
The Times: supports FTAA and other corporate oriented free trade pacts.
The Left: opposes such pacts.
The Times: opposes unions in most instances, and is highly suspicious of collective action (such as protests and strikes) in general.
The Left: generally supports unions, and believes collective action is an important part of democracy.
The Times: believes that Europe and Japan need to remake themselves more in the model of the US.
The Left: believes the US has much to learn from other countries.
The Times: regards Hugo Chavez as a menace to be removed by a coup, if it can be done smoothly, without calling attention to itself.
The Left: regards Chavez as the democratically elected leader of Venezuela.
The Times: believes that any left wing leader who gets elected in Latin America, India, or elsewhere should immediately betray his or her program and deepen neoliberal reforms.
The Left: believes such leaders should live up to their promises and challenge further privatization and polarization.
Bah, come now WEB we both know during an election the dirt will be found or in this case pulled from a news vault somewhere. Its not a matter of them being psychic and holding onto this, this story was run years ago already. The issue is why bring it up again all of the sudden, the answer is simple its a smear tactic and a diversion to pull attention away from the Democrats who are feasting on there young right now.
No, I don't think so. The controversy is still ongoing. The Times is covering the news. That's their job.
From the article:
Quote:
Mr. Kerry told Jonathan Singer of MyDD.com, a prominent liberal blog, in remarks that are available in an audio version online and that Mr. Kerry’s staff said last week were accurate. “So his people were active — let’s put it that way.”
Two former Kerry strategists said last week that Mr. Weaver went to Mr. Kerry’s house in Georgetown a short time after Mr. Kerry won the Democratic nomination in March and asked that Mr. Kerry consider Mr. McCain as his running mate. (Mr. Weaver said in his e-mail message that the idea had come from Mr. Kerry.) Whatever the case, both sides say that Mr. Kerry was so enthusiastic about the notion that he relentlessly pursued Mr. McCain, even to the point of offering him a large part of the president’s national security responsibilities.
Mr. McCain, who has rarely spoken publicly of his talks with Mr. Kerry, said last month that he had dismissed the vice-presidential offer out of hand. “He is, as he describes himself, a liberal Democrat,” Mr. McCain said of Mr. Kerry when he was asked about the episode by a participant at a public forum in Atlanta. “I am a conservative Republican. So when I was approached, when we had that conversation back in 2004, that’s why I never even considered such a thing.”
Mr. Kerry declined last week to discuss his conversations with Mr. McCain, but three former Kerry strategists said that Mr. McCain had not immediately dismissed the notion of sharing the Democratic ticket. “McCain did not flat-out say no, regardless of what he’s saying now,” said one strategist who asked not to be named. “He was interested in this discussion.”
Most of this talk that occurred, happened within a week prior to the article being released, so unless you would like this information suppressed, then the paper is doing its job getting information to the public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesty Puller
To quote Bill Oreilly "The split between some conservatives and john McCain was front page news all over the country, as it should have been." Any bad feeling between the republican presidential nominee and the right wing of the party is important".
"The left wing media is downplaying the bitter fight within the Democratic party. What we have here is lots of democrat vs democrat bickering you would think this fracture would be a huge story." "The Washington Post has down played the story as have other liberal media organizations. This is very strange for a news organization that prides itself on political coverage. The Washington post doesn't want to report on fighting within the Democratic party, and the paper is not alone."
So instead of reporting on the giant crevice in the Democratic camp, they decide to run old news on McCain while he is struggling to get the hard core conservative vote.
That just shows that Bill O is an even bigger liar than I thought. The news media is SATURATED with Hillary vs Obama fight, I turn on the news as soon as I get everyday. For example, just today after the story about how Pentagon sent nuclear technology to Taiwan by mistake, they were again talking about how Hillary supporters would not support Obama and Obama supporters would not support Hillary. To claim that the media has not been saying this is so absolutely false, I'd have to say it's delusional. I have to wonder if you actually watch the news at all, in order for you to make a statement like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesty Puller
My original point was not that any of this was false or misleading, in fact most of this is true, the Republican party wanted a nominee other then McCain most people know this. My problem is instead of reporting on important topics to Americans like the huge division occurring within the democratic party they decide to rerun a story that's how many years old? Its just a little too convenient in my eyes. Especially for papers famous for their political coverage, suddenly while the democrats ravage one another it gets quiet and instead of hearing about the schism in the Democratic party we get an old story on McCain. Seems like the left wing liberal media is trying to downplay and outright hide this fracture within the Democratic party by waging a republican smear campaign (which is not overly surprising). Running old news on McCain is A little too convenient for this Republican to swallow when the divide in the Democratic party is such a major issue, can you say Deflection?
I think that the right wing attacks on the media are pathetic and like a conspiracy theory. Attacking the media for reporting the facts is totally dishonest and sheer hypocrisy. Conservatives are supposed to be the tough guys, the hard and honest truth guys. The straight talk from the silent majority. Now everytime they get the truth they have to lie about it. I watch the news all the time and I get my news from almost all the media outlets, so I've seen that what you've said is not only false, but totally absurd. Your comments here are as unfactual and absurd as saying that there was a media blackout of coverage on the Monica Lewinsky affair.
WEB
__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")
Linear Mode
